Talk:HAL Dhruv

Incidents

Refer to the section: 'Incidents', and the last sentence of the paragraph "The helicopter team performed in the air show.[citation needed]".

Pls be informed that am witness to the helicopter team "Sarang" performing at the Aero India 2007? Here are some of the pictures of Sarang: http://media.bharat-rakshak.com/aero/AeroIndia2007/Flying/HALDhruv

http://media.bharat-rakshak.com/aero/AeroIndia2007/Flying/HALDhruv/DSC00788.JPG.html http://media.bharat-rakshak.com/aero/AeroIndia2007/Flying/HALDhruv/P1000935_exposure.JPG.html

Also I can confirm that on 9-Feb-07 I spent 2 hours with the Sarang Aerobatic team (the same team that was in the air practicing on the fateful day) at that time the flight data from the black box indicated in great detail the fateful last moments, and the team consensus was that the crash was due to pilot error.

I hope you can now remove the citation needed tag form the article.

Cheers. - Vishwakarma 00:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Gallery

Do we need the gallery? we have eight images in the rest of the article and a link to all the others at Commons. Not sure adding more and more images adds to the article when they can all be accessed in Commons. MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute

Certain errors cropped into the article and I have removed it and replaced with the correct aspects. 1. The cost of the Dhruv is now at 44 crore. Don't know which variant is that, but that's the latest price reported. 2. Kept the EAF chief comment and also included the latest press report by EAF regarding the performance of Dhruv in EAF service. 3. Defencenow is an arms dealer company and hence their link is removed. Similar attempts were made through the news agency AFP and it got busted with the EAF criticising those reports and claiming that the performance of dhruv is very good. 4. The WSI Dhruv is the Mk.4 variant and not the Mk.3 is just the one with the Shakti engine. Mk.4 is the weaponized version of mk.3 (with the same engine), but with slight modifications to the airframe and is known as mk.4 or Rudra.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

1. The cost can gladly be readded, with evidence to that account.

3. Even if they were an arms dealer company, they're still a valid source for inclusion; we've got plenty of references to the arms dealer HAL! Any proof that their article was directly denied by the EAF? If one report saying they're happy in one month is included, it only seems balanced to include an oppositing announcement at a different time as well, to avoid WP:POV. Until it is proven and agreed to be the consensus of editors that the piece is inappropriate.

4. A cited source says otherwise, is there proof or rival accounts stating the opposite? According to the account I've linked, the WSI Mk.3 is seperate from the bog standard Dhruv Mk.3, but only outfitted with the targetting systems, perhaps to act as the eyes for another armed helicopter, a scout. Kyteto (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Signficant disputes of the suitability of content should be discussed on the talk page, hence I have moved this discussion there. Kyteto (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

1.Google. If you consider it to be 40, I don't have any issue with that as well. 3. There will be conflict of interest. Hence an invalid source to count on. You'll either find such sources which are copies of these or it will appear in sites like AFP and then to other media copycats. Those claims are denied by EAF. Here is the link and link. Need to use Google translate. 4. The report from your link is wrong. There is no such helicopter. There are Mk.1, Mk.2 and now Mk.3. The Mk.4 is the armed variant or WSI Dhruv. That's all.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

1. The burden of proof lies with the contributor, it is your job to prove the content you wish to add, not simply shout at the person challenging it's authenticity to go on a google-hunt. 3. The Google translate is so mangled, I couldn't be sure of what it is saying to any degree of reliability, certainly I can't see any government denial of DefenseNow's disputed Logistics issues. The article is addressing allegations from the Pakistan Press Agency; and it was written by a HAL employee(! That's hardly neutral!). 4. Simply declaring it to be 'wrong' doesn't matter a tinker's cuss. Wikipedia works on the balance of evidence and proof, sources are found to overrule seemingly-correct-but-mistaken sources, if they exist. We can't put balance of evidence towards an anonymous internet commenter's say-so alone. Removing cited information on the back of uncited user opinion alone simply isn't right. Kyteto (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

1. No need. Let it be 40 crore. 3. DefenceNow's issues are the same that got denied. That's HAL's official statement. Why you call it as written by "just an HAL employee"? You can read the EAF chief's statement which is very positive about Dhruv. Also note that the EAF is planning to order more Dhruvs. So the claims from Defencenow are all bogus, and done to progress their business interests. 4. Some jackass has written that mk.3 being the mk.4. Just a google search of "mk 4 (WSI Dhruv)" will tell you that it's incorrect. Why sweat unnecessarily debating things that are known.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"Why sweat unnecessarily debating things that are known?" The reason is, multiple editors, such as I, are worried about this article having been 'whitewashed' in the past, that is to say it used to mention everything favourable about the aircraft, but completely overlooking any negative reporting. I got very suspitious when an entire paragraph was reorientated 180 degrees from:

However, in October 2009, media reports emerged that Ecuador was considering sending their six helicopters back to HAL as they had found the helicopter to be unfit for service; this would be a considerable blow as Ecuador is the Dhruv's biggest export customer. In July 2011, Ecaudor expressed its disatisfation with the Dhruv, stating reasons such as: "poor after sales service, expensive spares and... over-invoicing".

Erased and replaced with:

Ecuadorian Air Force told the media that the performance of the Dhruv helicopter is very good and is deployed along the northern borders to support the troops and community. Dhruv is involved in missions like rescue, airlifting, aeromedical evacuations in those areas. EAF plans to place orders for more Dhruv helicopters.

I think you can appreciate why that looks incredibly suspitious, any mention of the helicopter being potentially returned erased, logistics issues erased; nothing but sparkling good news packed in its place. The current resolution is far better, but originally this switch set off major warning lights on the WP:POV scale. These facts may be 'known' to you, but neither I nor Wikipedia care what is 'known' to the general public, only what can be verified and proven (If it can't be verified, if it can't be proved, it doesn't belong here), see WP: Verifiability over truth. As the lead of that policy states, we do not care an editor thinks to be truth, but what cited sources prove it to be.

Also, you've changed your story on the Ecuador logistics issue; there is a gargantuan difference from the Ecuadorian Government denying that the Ecaudorian Government was unhappy with the logistics situation of the chopper, and HAL stepping in with their own self-interest in protecting the chopper denying any supply problems. HAL can still insist there's no problem while Ecuador is unhappy with the logistics, they're not mutually exclusive. HAL is hardly in a neutral position to dictate if Ecaudor is being overcharged, they're harding going to say "Yeah, we totally ripped them off" are they? They're automatically going to deny it and defend the allegation. Even if the allegation is mistaken in severity, that's not necessarily grounds for removal either, just look at the BAE Systems page.

Additionally, waving your hands and just saying "google-search it will prove I'm right" doesn't work here on Wikipedia. Again, the balance of evidence is on the contributor, I shouldn't have to do the donkey work to prove your point. I think the time to cite the sources of the facts I add to the article, and I've added dozens. I ask no less of you than I ask of myself or any other editor. Kyteto (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you create negativity for the sake of negativity. If there is substance in those allegations, it can be there. Else need to be whitewashed and the correct version as stated by their chief need to be put up.

Let take those issues one by one. It's reported that However, in October 2009, media reports emerged that Ecuador was considering sending their six helicopters back to HAL as they had found the helicopter to be unfit for service; this would be a considerable blow as Ecuador is the Dhruv's biggest export customer.[1] In July 2011, Ecaudor expressed its disatisfation with the Dhruv, stating reasons such as: "poor after sales service, expensive spares and... over-invoicing" this was replaced with

Following the crash of one of the Dhruv helicopters during a ceremony in October 2009, the EAF chief stated "if it is a major problem that can't be easily remedied, we would have to return the Dhruv." A team from HAL was send to investigate. The investigation found the reason for the crash to be a pilot error. In February 2011, it was reported that satisfied with the performance of Dhruv, EAF was considering further orders of the Dhruv. According to EAF press release, the Dhruv has been involved in search and rescue, transport, and MEDIVAC missions in the north of the country.

You totally avoided the first line. That's from where the media start to bad mouth Dhruv and then their EAF cheif said "if it's bad, then....." Again IF it is bad, THEN.... Now you cannot blame the idiots in the media to write whatever they want to, but what the chief said is the only statement that came from EAF. Now the question being asked is Did the EAF send back the Dhruv? And when? This is 2011 ending and we're close ot 2012. So during these three years time, no such thing has happened. Why? So Dhruv is not bad and hence......Now do those reports of October 2009 deserve whitewashing? or you want to keep it for the sake of negativity?

If BAE has issues with their planes, never means that everyone's else planes must come crashing down too. Don't compare things and don't create issues when none exists for the sake of negativity.

I would like to see a internet link to read, rather than some book which I don't have access to. Can you provide a single link to claim that mk.3 and mk.4 do have WSI versions? Also provide links that's not from arms dealers and that did not contradictory in nature. Like how can EAF plan to order more Dhruv, when there is issues? How can EAF say that the performance of the Dhruv is really good if there are issues? Also how can they say that there is a bailout due to the purchase of Dhruv? How can people be rescued, Med evacuated, search and rescue carried out along the border areas, then how is the aircraft grounded? . If you want to keep those changes that you made, you bring them on and put it here and prove your point.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"I would like to see a internet link to read, rather than some book which I don't have access to". The source is available online, if you'd bothered to look so far as the Bibliography - Your research isn't very indepth if you missed that.

"Also provide links that's not from arms dealers and that did not contradictory in nature." Irrelivant complaint. If the source is an arms dealer or not (You haven't proven DefenseNow to be an arms dealer anyway, they appear nothing more than a defense article agency) doesn't matter a dime to Wikipedia policy, unless the source breaks WP:RS or the other WP Policy source guidelines (It would be relevent to deleting a reference if it violated a guideline, feel free to tell me which one it breaks in that case). Likewise, all the sources available don't have to agree with each other; the Wikipedia article on a subject is supposed to cover both the good and the bad press, not tell the story of one side only and pretend the other doesn't exist.(How can the propaganda of Stalin's greatness be mentioned on his article, whne many historians write of him being a Genocidal dictator? Because Wikipedia documents both sides of the article's subject, even if they contradict.)

"If BAE has issues with their planes, never means that everyone's else planes must come crashing down too." You missed the point entirely. If BAE has a major controversy, but is later disproved or denied or non-conclusive; all mention of the controversy isn't oblitorated. Simply because the controversy wasn't correct doesn't mean it is wiped from record, a note that it was challenged for authenticity is added alongside. The same goes for HAL, Sukhoi, Boeing, or any other manufacturer. If you don't believe that denied scandals are documented on other aircraft manufacturer's articles, I invite you to take a look for comparison. And I would recommend comparing, as it would show you what are normal conventions here on Wikipedia, and that we're not being unusual or malicious by defending this peice of content's inclusion.

"That's from where the media start to bad mouth Dhruv" That's your opinion of what they're doing. Reporting that the aircraft is potentially unfit is something far different than an insult if it is accurate reporting. There's plenty of examples littered throughout the article were the media have 'good mouth'ed the Dhruv' as well. I think that reports that the aircraft was potentially unfit for service are extremely important allegations that deserves to be recorded. We're not there to defend the Dhruv from criticism over its level of fitness, we're in no position to presume what that is, only what different sources tell us it is. Kyteto (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"you want to keep it for the sake of negativity?" We're not here to provide propaganda for HAL and only cover good news. Wikipedia covers bad press as well as the good. If it is negative or not shouldn't matter, if it is was treuly reported as such is. Kyteto (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As for "How can EAF say that the performance of the Dhruv is really good if there are issues?" That's never stopped the RAF with the Eurofighter, spare parts and cost overruns aplenty, yet they're full of praise for it. It is still possible to be really pleased with an aircraft overall, yet still say "X is a bit crappy about it"; I can spring off a dozen examples from other aircraft articles where this is done. Those articles do not simply say "The owners were very happy with it (And there's absolutely nothing else to tell)", because that would be bias reporting that hides faces and only covers one side. Why should the Dhruv be free from any coverage of its problems or reported-to-be problems? When the NH-90 helicopter was criticised by a magazine for its performance, and the German Army disputed their arguement, it didn't result in all mention of the dispute being removed, far from it, that information is still there (both sides of it) today. When the MV-22 Osprey's crash worthiness was criticised and rebuked by the USMC, both sides of the claims made it into the article, and are there today. Why should the Dhruv be whitewashed of negative incidents, when other aicraft articles aren't? Kyteto (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Have we any reliable sources for the Ecuadorian maintenance problems and the return of the aircraft other than the Associated Press of Pakistan, which does by its nature appear to have a slight anti-Indian bias. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Currently we don't use any Pakistan-based references. The potential return of the aircraft was from OneIndia News and India Report, while the claims on the maintainence issues come from DefenceNow. Touchthesky alleges the DefenseNow account is invalid because it is an arms dealer (?) and that it had wholley sourced its information from the Associated Press of Pakistan (I've yet to see evidence that some of their account could not come from other sources). Kyteto (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok but just to note the DefenceNow story comes two days after this and although not an exact copy has some of the same comments. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So that proves the point. One that It's propaganda aimed at Dhruv. Second Defencenow is not a News agency but is a business organisation that copies news and uses for their own business purpose.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Kyteto, when you say that Defencenow is not an arms dealer, I suggest you read the aboutus section in their website, which says "Defence Now’s core offering is an innovative, secure virtual platform providing a central source of communication empowering buyers and sellers to harmonise their information needs; promoting the business of defence, bringing complete transparency to the already complex world of India’s Defence, Aerospace and Homeland Security Sector.". Hence it's an unreliable source. Also it has been pointed out by MilborneOne that the same news appeared in the Associated Press of Pakistan, two days before. So this link become invalid and the claims bogus.

Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

That marketing sentence you submit as evidence of arms dealing says nothing more than they provide information on a website, not one peep about the sale of arms, the exchange of arms, the handling of arms, the pricing of arms, or the coordination of the sale of arms. How is this proof that they are an 'arms dealer', nothing in that says they trade weapons! promoting the business of defense doesn't mean they sell weapons at all, The Wall Street Journal promotes the stock market but they don't sell shares to the public! The claim 'they are an arms dealer' is not accepted. Kyteto (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"Hence it's an unreliable source" On what basis, that you incorrectly believe they are an arms dealer? Name one Wikipedia policy that would put that validates that position as unreliable. Policy declares unreliability and fit for use, not repeated declarations over and over: You've yet to mention a single WP Policy in your arguement, just shouting the same accusation over and over as if that makes any difference. Kyteto (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Again for the sake of negativity it's not good to add comments and propaganda. Any comparisons with other products are unworthy as long as the information added is unverifiable. Regarding the two Indian agencies news from October 2009, I will try to get the first version by scanning multiple forums like forum (source being forum is not important as we are only scanning for news report links and when they are posted). They will have news reports posted according to date and it will not be that difficult to find the source. May take some time. Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"Again for the sake of negativity it's not good to add comments and propaganda" I'd find that easier to believe if you hadn't deleted all refence to the helicopter potentially being returned early on. Why are you only chasing after the negative 'propaganda and comments', but not the positive? "HAL won the order amidst strong competition" That sounds like a 'bigging up' claim/comment, why not simply 'HAL won the order amidst competition', it isn't objectively strong competition. You're being one-sided, eager to paint the best picture possible, and don't share the same level of scepticism to the positive aspects as you do the negative. Kyteto (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

After a painstaking search, i found the original report came from the eluniverso newspaper of Ecuador. But it has not mentioned anything other than "Indian helicopters could be returned". The other accusations like spares, not worthy etc are all added later by various newspapers according to their whims and fancies and got copied all along. So I would suggest the inclusion of this link along with the content Following the crash of one of the Dhruv helicopters during a ceremony in October 2009, the EAF chief stated "if it is a major problem that can't be easily remedied, we would have to return the Dhruv." A team from HAL was send to investigate. The investigation found the reason for the crash to be a pilot error. In February 2011, it was reported that satisfied with the performance of Dhruv, EAF was considering further orders of the Dhruv. According to EAF press release, the Dhruv has been involved in search and rescue, transport, and MEDIVAC missions in the north of the country. Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You are submitting that a blog is telling the truth, is accurate enough to go on the basis of, and we should trust it for some reason? And why must we be restricted to the first article that is submitted on the event? If we restricted outselves to the information in the first article published on the Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash, we wouldn't know any of the subsiquent facts about the accident would we? More information emerges as the crash investigation continues, more statements are made, things are discovered. Restricting all information down the the first report is bizarre, unusual, and silly: It isn't like anything I've ever seen on Wikipedia before.

I would submit we use the section's current wording, that reflects both sides:

HAL also secured an order from the Ecuadorian Air Force (EAF) for 7 Dhruvs. HAL won the order amidst strong competition from Elbit, Eurocopter and Kazan. HAL's offer of US$50.7 million for seven helicopters was about 32% lower than the second lowest bid from Elbit. 5 helicopters were delivered in February 2009, during Aero India 2009. Both the Ecuadorian Army and Ecuadorian Navy have since expressed interest in the Dhruvs. The Dhruv has been involved in search and rescue, transport, and MEDIVAC missions in the north of the country.

Following the crash of one of the Dhruv helicopters during a ceremony in October 2009, it was reported that Ecuador considered sending their six helicopters back to HAL amid claims that the aircraft were unfit for service; EAF commander Rodrigo Bohorquez stated "If it is a major problem that can't be easily remedied, we would have to return [the Dhruv]." HAL assisted in the investigation into the crash, which later found the cause to be pilot error. In February 2011, it was reported that the EAF were satisfied with the Dhruv's performance and were considering further orders. In July 2011, it was reported that Ecuador has had issues with the Dhruv's maintainence, such as a "poor after sales service, expensive spares and... over-invoicing"; the authenticity of these reports has been challenged by HAL and the EAF.

I believe this is fair, the claim on the maintainence has been both mentioned and challenged, both sides have been included; as opposed to only the positive side. Actions to minimise and hide the seriousness of the helicopter's reason for return have now been explained as well, the investigation feared they were unfit, and that is an Indian link FYI. Kyteto (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

And you are still making basic errors in fact, the EAF chief did not make that claim, he was not Chief of the Air Force! He was a commander, not even in the top brass. "EAF commander Rodrigo Bohorquez". I had already pointed that out to you before. If you can't even fix errors like that... Try incorperating some of the factual changes into your preferred version. Kyteto (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The blog is that of a defense reporter from Headlines Today channel. Usually these defense reporters do keep a blog of their own. They also post reports that appear in newspaper into their blogs as well. Not necessary that all blogs are bogus. Verifiable stuff can be posted. I do remember you removing the blog link in which the image of the replacement Dhruv has been posted. That was unnecessary. And you're wrong again in questioning what I was trying to say. It was not the blog. The blog contained information of what's been reported in Ecuadorian newspapers. Click on those links and you get Ecuadorian newspaper article. Go through it. You get information on what has been reported from Ecuador by Ecuadorian newspapers. It's always necessary to go to the source of report to find the correct version. The others are all copied by reporters according to their likes sitting far far way in their own country without any investigation of their own. These reports again gets distorted while reported by another and finally it's a version that's totally different from the first one. Hence the need to post the first reported version and who reported, who said what and why etc from the source rather than from copycats.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

But can we prove that it is nothing more than copycatting and increasing fictionalisation, and not the incorperation of new statements and evidence that have been made as time goes on? And surely going on the perspective on one source alone instead of a group is open to WP:POV abuses? What if they weren't wholley neutral to begin with, would relying on them alone be entirely fair? Kyteto (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any major disagreements from the latest version you put up, since you needed that negativity. I will suggest a minor change. instead of "these reports has been challenged by HAL and the EAF." be changed to "these reports has been dismissed by HAL and the EAF as untrue/rumor/propaganda.". Also I would also suggest that "The Dhruv has been involved in search and rescue, transport, and MEDIVAC missions in the north of the country." to come last because it's the latest report and also that gives the Dhruv a clean chit about its performance along with how it's used in the EAF.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason I've bumped the performance of the Dhruv up to paragraph one is for proportions, the first one had become too small in comparison to the second one. Additionally, the context fitted nicer with the chain of information in that first sentence, while in the second it seems more abrupt and disconnected. Kyteto (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion of various version like the Naval version is a good suggestion. It comes in all the three variants except for the Navy which may be having Mk.1. The WSI stands for Weapons System Integrated and only those Dhruv that's WSI or Weapon System Integrated (with weapon systems) are called the mk.4/Rudra variant. I hope you understand this.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"I hope you understand this" I may want to know that, but my personal wants don't overrule evidence. You would need to find some other published book, magazine, something just as strong and valid, to overrule it with. Editorial opinion is less significant that what far more professional publishers have written. If the source is an "incorrect Jackass" as you attest, both you and I are even more insignificant and likely-to-be-incorrect "Jackasses". It would need to be overruled by a source or series of sources just as professional. Kyteto (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There cannot be professional and editor bias, when it comes to verifiability. A professional who don't know about what he writes is more or less a plain dumbass and an editor who knows about what he writes is a professional.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Kyteto, if you're making a change, then you must have provided a proper net link. Anyway here is the link for the article, you mentioned. That article is a accumulation of information from many of the articles including that from the so called editor.;) Anyway where he gets confused is when he says "The Mark III WSI includes the electronic warfare suite, Counter Measure Dispensing System (CMDS), EO pod and the Helmet Pointing System." So according to him the MK.3 WSI Dhruv with the above systems and without weapons (notice that he says helmet pointing system. I don't understand what's that for and to point towards what? ;)) Now for the first time, i read Weapons System Integrated Dhruv is without weapons and that also from a professional. Then he goes on to say "Mark IV will add the capability for deploying the turret gun, rocket system, air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles. Gun and rocket firing trials were conducted in 2008. A total of 159 Mark III and IV Dhruvs are planned". May be he got confused on seeing the WSI variant in testing as the mk.3 which has not been fitted with missiles and other weaponry and thought that's a mk.3 variant. WSI stands for Weapon System Integrated and that's the same as mk.4/Rudra. I think now you understands. Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"Kyteto, if you're making a change, then you must have provided a proper net link. Anyway here is the link for the article, you mentioned." I have provided a citation for that statement, months ago: Hirschberg 2011, p. 51. And there's no need to put the link on the talk page, it has been linked on the Bibliography for months; adding the link here adds what exactly? Touchtheskywithglory, if you're making a change, then you must provide a proper net link. You've provided no sources, no links, no evidence, for overruling and disregarding a cited source. Maybe you're right and he is confused. Or maybe he is right and you are confused; it could go one way or the other. This can't swing on your opinion that evidence of what you want to say is unnecessary. This needs evidence; right now the statement goes with the balance of evidence, as advocated by WP:Verifiability over truth. Kyteto (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You are expected to provide source to discuss, in the talk page and in the article, in serious discussions to figure out what's been there in that article. But you mentioned about the article, without providing the net link for the same making it difficult for others to figure out what's there in that article. You have still not provided another link that's been asked that can give credibility to the point that indeed there is a WSI dhruv which is mk.3.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"notice that he says helmet pointing system. I don't understand what's that for and to point towards what?" This isn't a forum (see WP:NOTFORUM), we're here to discuss changes/improvements to the article, not play 20 questions on what-does-what-on-the-helicopter. But if you want a guess, perhaps it the helmet-mounted pointing system is like the F-16's Helmet Queing system, the helicopter is set up with sensors and targetting equipment to detect, designate, and communicate targets to other aircraft such as the armed WSI. The US has helicopters that scout for other attack helicopters and aircraft; an unarmed scout with the same sensors and target-aquisition systems as armed aircraft is not exactly unheard of. Kyteto (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If there is helmet pointing system, it means it's a weaponized Dhruv with full weapon systems. Otherwise there is no need for any helmet pointing system. The name Weapon System Integrated itself means full weaponry. If you state that there is another version under development, requires proof, which you have not provided, except for the erroneous article, which contradict itself.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"If there is helmet pointing system, it means it's a weaponized Dhruv with full weapon systems. Otherwise there is no need for any helmet pointing system." Wrong. The OH-58 Kiowa has a helmet-mounted targetting system; and it is typically unarmed, it is a scout (remember I told you before, scouting helicopters view their targetting information and send it off to to other targets; how do you think they review it?). Why do you keep trying to pass off your personal assumptions/lies as fact? Stop trying to invent facts to prove you're right, it is laughable to anybody who actually takes the time to conduct research as opposed to making it up. Kyteto (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Not necessary that it must be a scout like the Kiowa warrior. Not in the case of Dhruv. Never heard of a program, never read about it. If you have any source, you can provide it here. That's what I meant in the first instance, but you're still insisting that Dhruv got a scout role, source please.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Also the article that you posted, never states that the helicopter with the pointing system is a scout version, but calls it a WSI Dhruv. It's you, who is assuming it to be a scout. Synthesis. From the Indian Army page, it's clear that the WSI Dhruv means the version with full weapon systems. And I hope that sorts it out the arguments with WSI Dhruv completely.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The Indian Army's page of the WSI Dhruv states "The Army's 'weapons system integrated' helicopters will feature a chin-mounted, three barrel 20mm gun from Lockheed Martin and four pylons - each having two hard points - which will enable it to carry eight Nag anti-tank guided missiles, four 68mm or 70mm rocket pods or four tube-launched air-to-air missiles." So WSI Dhruv means that. Not non-weaponized version.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"...calls it a WSI Dhruv. It's you, who is assuming it to be a scout. Synthesis." Firstly, this is a talk page, WP:Synth and other policies apply to article content not the talk page. Secondly, there's no claim that it is a scout in the article, I was only informing you that there could be roles such as scouting for such a helicopter; there's no assumption made that it is a scout. Thirdly, it is an example that proves you were lieing in this dicusion when you said that an unarmed helicopter wouldn't never need a helmet targetting system. If you tell lies, expect to be called on it. "Never heard of a program, never read about it" Considering the things you've made up and fabricated so far, the fact you've never heard of something doesn't stand as conclusive evidence that it doesn't exist either; it is perhaps more indicative of lazy research and a reliance on forums and blogs for info on your part. Kyteto (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what's asked. Where is the source for the scout version of the Dhruv? You did not provide it. Only went to assume that WSI means scout version. Source please. Secondly we discuss WSI Dhruv and what is WSI Dhruv. Don't drag in unnecessary discussions. It's totally unwanted and to bring in discussions that's done in a forum of may be may not arguments. Thirdly you're calling me a liar, without you proviing that there exists a scout version of the Dhruv. I think you can keep the discussion decent without taking personal potshots at others. If you cannot defend your point, this is not the right way to go. Again source please and all the forum talk be taken somewhere else.?Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be more happy if I got a straight answer of your intentions, rather than a ticking off. I would like it to be explained; when you said: "If there is helmet pointing system, it means it's a weaponized Dhruv with full weapon systems. Otherwise there is no need for any helmet pointing system." what was this intended as? Was it your opinion, a guess, stated as fact, which I would see as quite deceptive on your part; or is it a lie? I call it a lie because that is how it reads to me, what would you call it? I consider your truthfulness and knowledge of the helicopter, as well as any tendendency to fabricate facts, as very relevent and necessary to evaluating the merits of your edits. I can defend my point well enough, I do not have to lie and make facts up to do it. As I said before, the Scout was a Hypothetical role that such an equipped helicopter could be used in, I do not alledge that it exists and I do not petition to go any further than the sources that have been presented have gone. Kyteto (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"WSI Dhruv means that. Not non-weaponized version" Doesn't rule out a non-weaponised version either, and a cited source says it exists. Considering that your last big declaration that "If there is helmet pointing system, it means it's a weaponized Dhruv with full weapon systems. Otherwise there is no need for any helmet pointing system." was a lie contrary to reality, how much faith should I put in this latest declaration of "I know everything"? Kyteto (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It is also a very simplified article, with far less depth than even this one; it is only a general overview. To discount the existence of this variant, you should use its absense in a comprehensive listing of Dhruv variants, the sort that are published in specialist books such as Janes. Kyteto (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a simple article. It clearly describes what's WSI Dhruv. That's what's supposed to be known and it's known now. Also let me remind you that Janes, gets its information from such Indian army websites and government of India sources and articles that come up in Indian newspapers. If those information is not released by the Indian army or the government, Janes will not know anything. And since this is not a forum, it's better to keep Janes etc off the discussion if you're not having articles of Janes on Dhruv. Since it's now know what's a WSI dhruv, I think we can make the changes in the page.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Like I said it is a simple, short, sweet article, that doesn't even mother to mention half the Variants of the Dhruv as it is. There's no mention of the deatils of the Air Ambulance, the different Civilian layouts; it simply skipped them as being too minor. It isn't a comprehensive list, else we'd have to remove those variants of the Dhruv as well according to your logic. Simply because Janes get their information from the government doesn't mean we use the first government page we come across as the be-all, end-all; as I've pointed out it misses more than one Dhruv variant we KNOW to exist dispute it being a government source. And it will, because it isn't TRYING to be comprehensive. Janes for example, does try to be comprehensive, its for the audience they write to (And the Indian Army have no need to be comprehensive really, it is a small overview for the media to make use of for basic facts/information, they have thousands if not tens of thousands of pages on information on the Dhruv, they're clearly not sticking it all up.) The US Army's page on the Apache doesn't mention most of the Apache variants, because the B and C were so irrelevant and unnoticable, they could be skipped without explaination. The same could be here, for now; a lack of comprehensiveness is COMMON in publicity overviews. Kyteto (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You're again deviating from the point. You got what is a WSI Dhruv. You can correct the present wrong entry that you introduced about WSI Dhruv. And No one is stopping you from adding information on usage type based variation like naval, air ambulance, civil variant etc. They may come under the mk.1 mk.2 mk.3 variants. Feel free to add info on those version and improve the article, but no errors like on WSI dhruv please.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not deviating from the point, I am saying that the page is no evidence that the source is wrong, thus it isn't yet proven to be wrong; and as it isn't wrong, you shouldn't be claiming it to be wrong. It takes a comprehensive variants list that misses its inclusion to prove it doesn't exist, and no such comprehensive variants list has yet been produced; thus the most comprehensive document we have to date says it exists, and thus it does. Kyteto (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It does prove that the current edit on the WSI Dhruv is wrong. The army site describes WSI Dhruv very cleary and neatly. What else is needed? A lack of Comprehensive list never means that info on the WSI variant should be erroneous in the article.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

A lack of comprehensiveness means it could have simply left a very minor variant out. If we're going to delete the unarmed WSI version on the basis of that article, why not delete the Ambulance and most of the Civilian versions too? According to that page they don't exist either; that's because it missed it out. It is only covering a very bare, broad look at the Dhruv and missing most of the details out, such as all the variants. That it missed a minor variant is likely due to them not feeling it worthwhile/significant to mention, and is not proof that it doesn't exist! Kyteto (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So what. You get to know what's a WSI Dhruv. Not having a comprehensive list never means all known information need to be removed or cannot add known info. Why should one delete Ambulance and civil variants when proper sources exist? What kind of argument is that? If something did not exist you remove it. If something is wrong, you correct it. Otherwise you'll end up vandalizing the page.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If something did not exist you remove it. If something is wrong, you correct it. Otherwise you'll end up vandalizing the page" So, when you removed: "However, in October 2009, media reports emerged that Ecuador was considering sending their six helicopters back to HAL" was that because you thought it was wrong (which it wasn't), or because it did not exist (which it did?). It would be nice if you applied those principles to your own edits. Kyteto (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"Why should one delete Ambulance and civil variants when proper sources exist?" Why should one delete the unarmed Dhruv-WSI if a proper source says it exists then? The point is, that souce didn't mention the unarmed WSI, the Ambulance, or the Civilian variants, and on that basis you want to declare the unarmed WSI a mistake by a source and removed. Why not apply the principle fairly and deny the Ambulance and the Civilian choppers, it would be evenly applying the same principle. By not deleting the Ambulance/Civil variants, you acknowledge that the source doesn't have to mention those variants for them to exist, and thus on that same fair, equal logic; the unarmed-WSI-based helicopter can still exist as well. Why only pick on the unarmed-WSI when the others are just as 'wrong' for not being mentioned in that source? And why leave them and remove that one if the page is supposidly conclusive evidence of existence/not-existing? Apply the principle fairly or not at all. A generalising article that misses out half the variants can't be used as fair evidence for some existing, it has already missed out some we know have to exist, so we know it misses some variants. Thus, that the unarmed WSI isn't in it means not much of anything. Does this explain your "so what" now? Kyteto (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You're again unnecessarily reverting and creating issues with arguments like "the source doesn't mention the problem, let alone that it solves it". The edit I made to the already existing info of "However, an Indian Army report in 2009 criticised the aircraft's capabilties, stating: "The ALH was not able to fly above 5,000m, though the army's requirements stipulated an ability to fly up to 6,500m"; this has been blamed on limitations of the TM333 engine, the Army had to continue relying on the older Cheetah/Cheetal helicopters " is "The more powerful Shakti engine has since been introduced on the Dhruv, to overcome this problem. The Dhruv was able to carry 600 kg load to Sonam Post, against a target of 200kg set by the Army." This edit is a continuation of the info provided above of the Dhruv not able to fly above 5000m due to limitations of TM333 engine and added info of introduction of Shakti engine which now helps to lift loads upto 600kg to high altitudes. Anway I will reword it, since you have objected to the use of the term problem. I wiil reword it in such a way that it will not have the word problem.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been linking you a policy to read along with those reversions, perhaps explaining why they weren't unnecessary if you had read it. You're synthasising a conclusion out of two seperate peices of news; joining them together when neither source makes references to one issue or the other. For all we know, your synthasis could be right in that the Shakti engine has satisfied earlier criticism that the helicopter couldn't attrain certain performance criteria, or it is wrong in that ic could not. Picking one isolated example of a test which it did well in doesn't mean even have the stuff in the original report has been done well enough; you're guessing that it is "good enough", the source doesn't even say that the engine's performance was good enough to answer the original concerns, it doesn't even reference them. Under the policy WP:Synth this kind of slanted Wikipedia editing isn't allowed; it is creating a conclusion that isn't in either source, and Wikipedia editors aren't qualified to do that. Kyteto (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That never applies here. The first source is about the inability of the Dhruv to lift due to lack of engine power of TM333 engine. The second is the introduction of Shakti and the lifting of heavy loads to those heights. Both are linked directly. There is no assumption here.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it IS an assumption/user-made conclusion that the Shakti engine 100% resolved every single shortfall that the Indian Army identified in their earlier report of multiple issues. Pretending that as an isolated test on one criteria answers an entire report of different engine-related shortcomings is a Sythesis. Concluding that the Shakti engine "Fully answers the earlier concerns" when the source makes no reference to those concerns is a User synthesis; if the source doesn't say it, it isn't our job to tie it together and claim that is does. For all we know, there are plenty of concerns and criteria as yet unresolved, the article doesn't even address those earlier concerns let alone say that they have been fully resolved, thus inserting a sentence to that spirit is not appropriate and is against WP:Synth. Kyteto (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, you're deviating. We're discussing about lifting load to heights and the engines. it has been said the earlier engine cannot do so. Now the info added states the new engine can lift loads to those heights. Now how's it assumption? You're trying to assume that there exists no link between the two and bringing in the Synthesis rule. It don't apply here.

"Now the info added states the new engine can lift loads to those heights" The source said it did it once, on a special test, not regular operations. The Dhruv was performing 'tests' at 8000 meters up when the Indian Army were complaining on normal service operations it couldn't hit 5000 meters. One test is far from enough to say that the engine has "resolved the problem", when the Indian Army say the problem has been resolved is when we say that the problem has been resolved; we don't 'conclude' that "it must be fixed!" for them, we're not qualified to do so. This is not deviation, this is explaination wholley related to what you asked me for clarification on, please stop writing EVERYTHING raised as deviation... Kyteto (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

My other problem with the "to overcome this problem" statement is that it is a lie. It is wrong, false, and mistaken. The Shakti engine had been in development since the 1990s, it was not specifically 'introduced to overcome this problem[The Indian Army's altitude performance being below requirements]', it was introduced as planned since before the Dhruv even flew. The source doesn't claim that's the reason why it was introduced, you've pulled it out of thin air and claimed it came from the source; yet reading it revealed no such statement in it. Additionally, the Shakti engine didn't sufficiently overcome the problem, the helicopter's oxygen systems are still inadequite to provide enough air for a full passenger compliment, the altitude problems were more than just an engine shortfall, and as such the new engine didn't 'overcome the problem' as some parts of it are unresolved and have not been 'overcome' at all. Kyteto (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

1990's? The contract to work in the development of the engine started in 2003.[1] It is developed to sort out this problem as well. The purpose of the development of this engine is said to be "The Ardiden was built to provide a response for missions with the most demanding hot weather and altitude requirements." And it did by demonstrating that capability. Further details of the Shakti engien states "The Shakti, fundamentally different in design, offers a take-off power of 1 200 shp, as well as an emergency power superior of 30% compared to the TM333 2B2. The Shakti will have a TBO within a range of 3 000 to 6 000 hours. So whatever the mission the Dhruv is called on to operate, it will have two engines ideally suited to it, while assuring its performances both at altitude and in hot weather.

"Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"It is developed to sort out this problem as well" It is was not; it was developed with hot weather and high altitude performance in mind, it was not specifically developed to address the performance shortfalls of a report released nearly a decade later. And the engine didn't fully address the problem, it isn't fully sorted. The engine was developed for 'some relevent and benefitial capabilities that addressed some of the concerns'; we have no evidence in either source to say that it A. Sorted the problem out. B. That it was developed for that purpose, beyond your synthesis guesswork. C. That all Indian Army complaints have actually been addressed. D. That the test covered all relevent criteria, instead of just the one the test was looking for (a massive jump from the evidence, which is unwarrented). E. Test conditions could be very different from the real world average day performance. The Dhruv could fly through this test, but still be unable to satify the Indian Army requirements in service; as I've said the life support system is still not improved and thus part of the complain still stands. The engine was not developed specifically for this problem, it just happens to be in a related area, there's no evidence in the sources that the problem has even been sorted, and there's no evidence that the problem has been adquitely addressed by the engine alone. You've taken a massive guess by claiming that the engine was developed in response to these requirements/solved these requirements, one that the evidence does not support in one iota beyond the generic "it improved altitude performance", not a toot on the performance improvement in relation to the report's problems! It is simply, a leap too far in logic. Kyteto (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you really expect anybody to believe that the requirements Aviation Week make mention to when they said: "The Ardiden was built to provide a response for missions with the most demanding hot weather and altitude requirements" is a fair jump to the 2007 Indian Army Requirements? It was written two years before these requirements even existed. It's an empty peice of marketing gump "with the most demanding hot weather and altitude requirements" The most demanding, that's very specific. Demanded by whom? It's marketing spin and nothing more, it is certainly not a fair link with Indian Requirements that didn't even exist yet! That link has to be specific, and I would have thought you could have noticed that there's no way a claim of adhering to requirements prior to these requirements being issued means there's no way it could be rationally referring/being said in any way related to the 2007 claims. Less vague, and in the right year next time please. Kyteto (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We can only say that the engine addresses the 2007 Army Concerns if a source tells us that it addresses the 2007 Army Concerns, put short and bluntly. Kyteto (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You dont stick to the point. The links provided proves the point. You unnecessarily debate things that's totally unnecessary. You know what, most of your arguments are wrong and contradicts itself. Take the case of testing. You say "Test conditions could be very different from the real world average day performance. The Dhruv could fly through this test, but still be unable to satify the Indian Army requirements in service". Either you assume that the tests conducted are just to ensure that the product can perform once to a certain parameter and other times it will not be able to meet those requirements or parameters set. Actually tests are conducted to find out the safe region in which it will be able to perform without any problem. If it can do lift loads of 600kgs to those heights against a requirement of 200kg's that means it surely can lift 600kg any time if it needs to. It's not the breaking point. and according to requirement any product may not be used to it's extreme capability all the time (Here you're correct when you say that all products may not be used in it's peak performance capability always). or say even to it's proven level. (say 600kg). That never means that it cannot be (Here you go wrong when you say that tested parameters cannot be met always). I hope you'll stick to the arguments. Bring in sources to prove your point and stop all unnecessary talks meant for forum discussion and debates. Because it's all unnecessary here, which not only wastes space and also time. So if you can have constructive argument, you're always welcome.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"If it can do lift loads of 600kgs to those heights against a requirement of 200kg's that means it surely can lift 600kg any time if it needs" No, no it does not. Let's use an example from the article "In October 2007, a Dhruv flew to an altitude of 27,500 feet (8,400 m)" compared with "An Indian Army report in 2009 criticised the aircraft's capabilties, stating: "The ALH was not able to fly above 5,000m". By your logic, that "it can surely lift 600 kg any time", how could the Dhruv in the same year get up to an altitude of 8,400 meters, yet the Indian Army complain that it was unable to fly above 5,000 meters? One is a publicity stunt and likely modified to do so, while the other is regular service. As I've said before (but you blather that it is irrelevant regardless of what is said), one test/special flight does not mean "it can surely do that feat any time". That's why I objected to your 'logical inserts' into the article; they're dangerous leaps in evidence. It is easy to demonstrate that your logic of "If it can do lift loads of 600kgs to those heights against a requirement of 200kg's that means it surely can lift 600kg any time if it needs" is not soundly factual, but an assumption. We stick with what the sources conclude, not what either of us conclude; and neither of them concluded that the engine 'overcame the issues raised by the 2007 Indian Army report'. Because it pulled it off once does not mean that is the benchmark of anything in service; the height example is the emobodyment of that principle. Kyteto (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Haha, you don't know India's CAG. They are always late. If you can point out the date of audit from which year to which year. Is it that of 2000's or 2005, that was released in 2009, then we can debate. And there is no need to conclude anything. It's all there in the source that the Dhruv indeed performed that. So you don't have to assume that it cannot.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no proof a production aicraft can do that because a possibly modified stunt Dhruv did the task. It may have been able to do the task, but have unsatisfactory engine wear ect. Remember, the Indian Army were unhappy that the Dhruv couldn't hit 5,000 meters, when HAL stunt Dhruvs were hitting 8,400 meters. A Dhruv laiden with combat equiptment, life support stystems for a full passenger load ect, is likely unable to get the same performance that a 'stripped' aircraft could do, doesn't mean it can do it in the field. We stay that it can be done in the field, when a source say it can be done, and we say the problem is overcame, when the sources say it has been overcame, not a 'personal logical conclusion'. Balance of evidence. Kyteto (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"So you don't have to assume that it cannot" But dear, I haven't been assuming anything, or trying to insert any content on this matter on a personal assumption. Don't you remember, you started the chain of discussion when I removed your assumptions on the basis that assumptions shouldn't be included in the article. Neither mine, nor your, assumptions that is does, or does not, meet those requirements matter: If a source is produced that says that the CAG's 2009 problems are resolved we can put that in the article, but as you've failed to produce anything more than "vague improvement with no comparison to the bad 2009 report at all", it stands as unsupported other than by the vaguest strands of evidence, an assumption not a fact. The difference is, I'm not trying to shove my counter assumption into the article as fact, I'm not as willing to make article content as you are. Kyteto (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Added later. It stuck me that the Dhruv that the CAG mentions can be of Mark-1 and II not the III. And it's true. While the testing of the Dhruv in Siachen by the pilots may be of the Dhruv variant III. The variant III with the new engine is being inducted from 2011 onwards only. So everything fits well. If you want to argue on the date and points etc, you surely need details of the variant been tested, the ones in service on which CAG conducted the Audit etc, otherwise you cannot blame the Dhruv variant III at the same time and say that the ones in service (Mk.I and MK.II) is the same that's being tested.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Added later: I also found that Unni is the test pilot of HAL and in 2007,they were testing the new Dhruv (mark-III) with the Shakti Engine.[2] Which says "In February 2007, the Dhruv was qualified for high-altitude / low-temperature operations in Kashmir and Jammu." This proves everything that indeed the Shakti engine has sorted out the problem reported by CAG.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The old aircraft qualified as well, and that was still inadequite. Still a jump to say it satified those complaints using a source that doesn't mention the the complaints at all. All this means is that it can now be used in those roles, not that it does them to the fullest extent of those problems. Or do I have to give examples of aircraft that officially 'qualified' to do a task while official's complaints about some of its abilities still stood? Kyteto (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"The links provided proves the point". No, they don't. You gave me random sources written in 2005, that supposidly tell me that the Shakti engine was developed to resolve the problems raised in the 2007 Indian Army's Report's on the Dhruv's Performance; but how can sources written in 2005 have remotely any bearing on if the engine did or did not successfully address the problems, other than the very, very, very generalised answer of "Indian Army had hot-and-high performance problems. New engine good at hot-and-high stuff. Thus new engine must fix problem"; and I disapprove of Cave-man logic because it has holes in. The performance was more than just engine related; no source so far has actually said that the 2007 problems were successfully answered by the engine (The sources you're mentioned don't even mention the 2007 problems, let alone say the engine overcame it), and it isn't satisfactorily proven. It is a guess than its performance is up to snuff, and guesses just aren't good enough. Kyteto (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Army's report? CAG is no army. They are auditors. They audit of specific years and then release those results in specific year. So if we have those report, we can debate, without which it's impossible to discuss anything.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"So if we have those report, we can debate, without which it's impossible to discuss anything" So why, without the reports, did you claim that the Shakti engine 'solved the problem'? Which of course it couldn't, as the oxygen generation system also prohibitied the Dhruv from operating at the correct altitude.(Unless you're claiming that the Shakti engine magically makes extra oxygen for the passengers, in which case, source please). You're right that without the continuing, we can debate it, but NEITHER OF US should be making up conclusions to stick in the article as to if, or if not, the Mk.3 successfully met the criteria complained about. And only one of us has been repeatedly adding that false conclusion that it did, and that was you. I advise you take your own advice, and find those reports before making up the fact that the problems was solved off the top of vague marketing press and generic statements of 'improved performance'(no mention of it is was, or wasn't, 'improved enough' to meet those complains has been in anything you have submitted.) Kyteto (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"Here you go wrong when you say that tested parameters cannot be met always". Really, so there's never been a test that produces resulted that cannot normally be reproduced on normal helicopters? Example: the current helicopter world speed record holder: The Westland Lynx. One was able to reach speeds of 249 MPH you know. However, the production helicopters cannot do that; it was tricked out for testing and the record attempt. Test perameters achieved on a single aircraft, once, are not always able to be met. How about a non-helicopter example, and one that was unmodified from ordinary mass production: Are you familiar with the Mallard, the locomotive that set the world speed record for a railway steam locomotive? Few people know, but the Mallard wasn't just pulling no carraiges beyond the one used for monitoring speed, but achieving such a speed damaged it heavily, resulting immediate weeks of repair-work and a perminant shortening of life. Doing that stunt on any Gresley A4 is possible, probably, but likely only the once, as you'll never get it into peak shape again after that damage, it is a once-in-a-life-time run. Or how about another example, the fastest diesel locomotive in the world, the Intercity 125. In service it was limited to 125 MPH, but it once made a 148 MPH (238 km/h) run; there were two reasons this wasn't used in regular service. The first was that the vibration upon the passenger carriages was beyond the set levels of acceptability, meaning it wasn't acceptable upon passenger runs, and second was that signalling restrictions for margin of error on the human operator was shortly after restricted at 125 MPH. The machine was more than capable, but safety and comfort standards meant a more-than 10% cut in speed from potential to inservice limits. For one special test, the Dhruv may have been burning its engines to heaven, and had thoroughly worn them out by the time it landed (not that I could claim such a thing in the article); but we do not know if this was a feat any regular Dhruv could have done, or that it would be something that could be done regularly; or it could have imposed such intolerable conditions in a certain criteria (like noice, or vibration, or engine life, or margin of safety, ect ect) that it wasn't suitable for repeating as standard. We can't answer inservice complaints with a test result, the test conditions and criteria aren't guarenteed to have either ignored some standards or have been without modification/within nominal operational capacity. But as for the "You're wrong that test parameters cannot always be met always": Thank you another made-up fact presented as truth from Touchtheskywithglory. Why you have to make these guesses and false declarations is beyond me. Kyteto (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

By the same logic, it can perform better than that.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the logic is a 'catbox' of "we don't know", it could be better or it could be worse. On the basis that it is so uncertain, surely it is wise to NOT assume that the mk.3 Dhruv has satisfied the specific complains of the Indian Army Report, until a souce specifically says that they have? Kyteto (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"prove your point and stop all unnecessary talks meant for forum discussion and debates." I would like to, but when faced with made-up facts, stretches of the truth and misinformation there are only a few ways to respond to such tactics: Allow your falsehood to stand and in turn let those lies/assumptions be the basis of the article's content, or to challenge them and show why multiple declarations of yours have in fact been wrong and contrary to the real world. What would you have me do against such made-up misinformation? I've tried citing policy, and you've declared it irrelivent, I've tried sources and you say they must be wrong as you know better, so I'm left with challenging the 'I know better' aspect of your arguement.Kyteto (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You have still not proved that there exists a Scout Dhruv and you have not proved that the WSI Dhruv means non weaponized variant as well. All the links that are here says WSI means weaponized Dhruv.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have already said four times that the 'Scout helicopter' was a hypothetical is response to your lie that 'unarmed helicopters never have helmet pointing devices!' Look up what the word 'Hypothetical' means, nobody is trying to say that it exists. And I'm not trying to say that WI doesn't mean Weaponised, but if a source says that an unarmed variant of the weaponised Dhruv exists, who am I to say it can't on the basis of the naming? Kyteto (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is another link (not meaning that you have to discard the other links and articles) that talks about all these issues and help to solve the problem. It describes what's a WSI dhruv, It also describes the different weights that can be lifted by the two engine and how the Shakti has improved the performance from the first one. If possible, also read "Dhruv Shakti in Siachen" for more information.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It says "performance has gone up". I've never disputed that performance had gone up. But none of your sources has validated your claims that "performance has gone up to or beyond the levels criticised in the Indian Army report". There's no evidence that these criticisms were correctly answered by the engine, and thus not one voice that has said it was good enough to satisfy those demands. My point stands, your claim isn't proven. Kyteto (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

One more link for the weaponized Dhruv.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And what is this supposed to be relevant to? Nothing in here denies or disputes that an unarmed WSI variant could exist. Kyteto (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Kyteto, indeed there is a scout variant of the WSI Dhruv. ;) [3] I will make the necessary changes to incorporate this information.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

HAL Rudra

shall we create a new/seperate article for the Dhruv WSI under the name of HAL Rudra? thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.192.39 (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There does not seem to be much point right now, there's barely any detail to be had. Perhaps when it becomes a bigger topic with more potential sources, it doesn't even have an individual page on HAL's own site right now. Kyteto (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It will not have. It's just another variant of the Dhruv. Since the weapons are there and the role has changed, they have named it the Rudra to give it an appropriate name to suit its mission.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"It will not have" I wish that I, too, was a mindreader who knew for certain if or if not HAL were going to make an individual webpage on the WSI/Rudra; how I wish I had your superhuman abilities for knowing this statement to be perfectly true for all time! Kyteto (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

lol. If you know about HAL's media campaign (in reality none), you can predict about their website as well (I have not seen a change from the time I saw it first). :) Recently they kicked out someone who was writing publications for HAL. That guy has started a nice blog called Tarmak007, and works for some newspaper now.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Pakistani article and propoganda

The Associated Press of Pakistan did carry out Propaganda articles against the Dhruv.[4] If the original version or any saved variant can be found of that APP article, that will be good. APP article is the source of Propaganda that Ecuador is not satisfied with the Dhruv. This propaganda has been debunked and HAL and Government of Ecuador has stated otherwise and commended Dhruv's performance.Diahel (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The article has been found, along with a Diplomatic specialist article citing it as the origins of the rumour. Both have been inserted into the article. Is this sufficient? Kyteto (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, now it's perfect. And also don't allow anyone to remove either of those. That will again create the same issues of who is correct, who is wrong etc etc. So this version seems perfect.Diahel (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Pawan Hans

The issue of Pawan Hans operation of MOH helicopters has come into serious question.[5] The current version in the page only states that the MOH is going to replace Dhruv's with Mi-17's. This don't point out the role of Pawan Hans in making helis crash. The present version is just trying to project Dhruv as a bad Heli even though the fault lies with Pawan Hans, of which about six helis of various types has crashed in 2011 (upto Oct 2011), including Dhruv.Diahel (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Current revision of the section (minus my bolding for highlighting purposes here):

"In October 2011, Jharkhand's regional government issued an urgent appeal for Mil Mi-17 helicopters, as operations of their Dhruvs had been disrupted by prolonged maintenance delays and a major crash. In October 2011, allegations emerged about the quality of work peformed by Dhruv maintaince contractor, Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. In February 2012, the Home Ministry reported that the Dhruv remained grounded and that other helicopters such as the Mi-17 were being wet-leased in its place; and in the long term, the Dhruv fleet is to be entirely replaced."

This makes mention of the Pawan Hans incident, I had not removed it, only modified its placement in line with the timing of events and re-wording the sentence, along with implimenting formatting of the citation. Kyteto (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

o.k it's for MOH only. Also it need to be checked whether they are just maintenance contractor for MOH or MoH is leasing helis from Pawan Hans.Diahel (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)